Code of Conduct: Key Questions
Q. What are the key elements of the Code of Conduct?
A. To prevent interference with another nation’s space objects, the harmful use of lasers against space objects, and to prevent activities, experiments, or tests that result in the deliberate generation of persistent space debris. The Code also promotes information exchanges, consultation, and sound traffic management practices in space.
Q. Why is a Code of Conduct for space-faring nations needed?
A. Because having agreed rules that define responsible behavior promotes national security and global commerce.
Q. But rules don’t matter to bad actors.
A. And laws are frequently broken. That doesn’t make the laws irrelevant, or unimportant. Rules still matter. They make it easier to take action against rule breakers.
Q. But we can’t send police into outer space.
A. The United States has the means to punish rule breakers, especially countries that mess with our satellites.
Q. Don’t we need space weapons and anti-satellite weapons to punish bad actors?
A. We have plenty of ways to punish wrong-doers where they live. We don’t need to go into space to punish them. But we also have many ways to punish them in space, too, using weapons designed for other purposes. We don’t have to specifically design new space weapons or anti-satellite weapons to punish wrong-doers.
Q. Does the Code define and prohibit space weapons?
A. Our Code is all about responsible and irresponsible activities. It’s hard to agree on what is a space weapon, but we can all agree that blowing up a satellite and creating lethal space debris is irresponsible behavior. An agreed definition of space weapons isn’t needed for a Code of Conduct.
Q. What kind of ways do we already have to mess up satellites?
A. We can use jammers, lasers, ballistic missiles and missile defense interceptors, to name a few.
Q. If these means to engage in space warfare already exist, aren’t rules of the road obsolete or immaterial?
A. Just the opposite: Because these capabilities already exist, we need rules of the road to prevent their use to damage essential satellites. Despite their value, no satellites have been destroyed during war. We need to strengthen this norm by codifying and reinforcing existing restraints.
Q. Would the Code of Conduct impair our ability to harm another nation’s satellites if that nation attacks ours?
A. Rules can be different in warfare than in peacetime. The United States will still have the means to mess up the satellites of another country under our Code of Conduct. But it is still very much in our national security interest for satellites to remain off of targeting lists, even during warfare. That’s how valuable they are to our war-fighters.
Q. Why should we limit our freedom of action in the event of a war?
A. There are rules of warfare, too. We abide by them because we believe in the rule of law, and because the rules support our troops in harm’s way. If we reject rules in favor of freedom of action in space, we are likely to increase the dangers facing our troops. They – and we – will be better off if satellites remain functioning.
Q. If the United States and other nations already have the ability to destroy satellites, what is so bad about specifically designing, flight-testing, and deploying new anti-satellite weapons?
A. Because if we lead the way, others will surely follow. And if anti-satellite weapons and space mines trail our satellites in space, we can’t have confidence that our satellites will be there when we need them.
Q. But can’t we out-build and out-design the competition?
A. We can build more and better space weapons than the competition. But their space weapons don’t have to be sophisticated to be lethal. They can be rudimentary and cheap and still create havoc for our commercial and military satellites.
Q. Why don’t we launch our space weapons first and demand that others play by our rules?
A. By launching space weapons first, we set the rules that others will follow. And if we don’t want company, we will have to shoot down the competition before it joins us. And we have to be able to do this without creating lethal debris fields that can destroy our own satellites. In other words, “successful” space warfare requires having perfect intelligence, and being able to dictate war-fighting strategy and tactics against an adversary engaging in asymmetric warfare.
Q. Doesn’t the US national security strategy expressly permit preventive war and preemption in land warfare? Why shouldn’t we also follow this doctrine in space?
A. Waging a preventive war against a major power in space can easily be as difficult as waging preventive, asymmetric warfare on the ground.
Q. What’s the alternative to preemption? If we don’t stop others from launching space weapons through preemptive strikes, then their space weapons will be trailing ours.
A. Which will result in a hair-trigger situation in space, just like the hair-trigger situation we were plagued with during the Cold War. The alternative is to establish a Code of Conduct that helps to prevent dangerous activities in space.
Q. But if we exercise restraint, how can we be sure that other countries will play by our rules?
A. Nothing is certain except death and taxes. But we don’t depend on the good faith of others. We have the world’s best space monitoring capabilities and we enjoy dominant military capabilities – which makes it all the more important to take the lead in setting rules of the road for space that support our economic and national security interests.
Q: What does the United States have to lose from space warfare?
A: Since 1959 the United States has invested well over one trillion dollars in space.
Q. Why shouldn’t we protect our investments in space with firepower? If we don’t our military superiority will be impaired.
A. Space weapons won’t change the outcome of a war with the United States: we still win. But the costs of war are greater for everyone. The burdens on U.S. ground forces, which are already very great, become even heavier. US casualty counts will mount. And since US attacks will be less precise without satellites, others will suffer more, too. Everybody pays the price if space becomes a shooting gallery.
Q. Since the US has clear military dominance on the ground, shouldn’t we expect a surprise attack in space?
A. This can’t be ruled out, but as we have sadly realized, surprise attacks are much easier to carry out on the ground than in space.
Q: How will the flight testing and deployment of space weapons effect insurance rates for commercial activity in space?
A: Rates will rise precipitously.
Q. What does this mean for consumers?
A. Bad news.
Q. Will space weapons affect my life?
A. We rely on satellites everyday, to keep our soldiers safe in the field, to help first responders make emergency calls, to conduct bank transactions…the list goes on and on. If satellites are targeted, we will put those satellites and the services they provide at great risk.
Q. Isn’t the deployment of space weapons inevitable?
A. If it were, it would have happened during the Cold War. We avoided space warfare then, and we can avoid it now, too.
Q. Isn’t the threat of space warfare greater now than during the Cold War?
A. No. Soviet space warfare capabilities were far greater in the past than the combined space warfare capabilities of all potential adversaries today.